■ OS 



423 
C15 
opy 1 



MR. CALHOUN'S ADDRESS 

jTo tSie People of the Southern States. 



Several reasons would have prevented me from 
taking any notice of Col. Benton, if his attack in his 
iate speech, delivered in the Capitol of Missouri, bad 
been directed exclusively against oie. The line of 
conduct. I have prescribed to myself, in reference to 
him, is to have as little to do vsith him as possible ; 
and, I accordingly, never notice what comi'sfrom him, 
even in his character as Senator, when 1 can avoid 
doing so consistently with my public dutits 1 regard 
him in a I'ght very different from what he seems to re- 
gard me, if we may judge from the frequency and vio- 
lence of his attacks on me. 

He seems to think 1 stand in his way, and that I 
am ever engaged in some scheme to put him down. 
I, on the contrary, have never fur a moment thought 
of raising him to the level of a competitor, or rival, 
nor considered it of any importance to me whether 
he should be put down or nut He must think he has 
something to gain by as.=ailing me ; I, on the coa- 
trary, feel 1 have nothing to gain by nuticing lim, 
and when comnelled to do so, am satisfied if 1 escape 
without some loss of self respect. 1 have another rea- 
son for not desiring to notice him on the present oc- 
casion. All his charges against me, with few and 
tnfltng exceptions, are but the reiterations of those 
often made heretofore by himself and others, anel 
■which 1 have met and successfully repelled in my place 
in the Senate nr community, there can be no better 
proof, than is afforded in the laborious and tiresome 
effort he made iu his present speech to revive and give 
them circulation. 

Under the influence of these reasons, I would have 
remained silent had I alone been concerned But 
such is not the case His blow is aimed much more 
at you than me lie strikes at me for the double 
purpose of weakening me in your cunSdence, and of 
striking at you and yuur cau-e through me, which he 
thinks can be doue more effectually indirectly than 
directly. Thus regarding this attack, I feel it to be 
a duty 1 owe you and your cause to repel it. 

'1 he effort of Col. Benton, from the beginning to 
the end of his >peech, is to make out that I have ever 
been uiifaiihful to your cause, and true to that of the 
Free Solers and abolitionists ; while, on the contrary, 
you had m him an unknown but faithful friend on all 
ocea.-ions. He assumes that jou and they have been 
both mistaken in reterence to my course ; you in re- 
garding me as a friend and supporter of your cause, 
and they in regarding me as hostile to theirs Judged 
by appearance, his object would seem to be to expel 
this delusion, while iu truth it is to give you and 
your cause, what he hopes will prove, deadly blows. 

This the Ab'ilitionists and Free Soilers well under 
staiid. The disguise was not assumed to deceive 
them, but to deceive 3'ou. They und rstand him, and 
have bailed with acclamation his speech, and pub- 
lished it and circulated it far and near, and glorified 
it and its author to the skies They rejoice in the 
belief that it has demolished me, and this oo, when 
it holds u.e up as the truest and bett friend to their 
cause. It remains to be seen, whether you will un- 
dertitaDd him as peifectly as they do, and will meet 
the speech, so lauded by them, with the reprobat on 
due to effrontery and dpsertion. It is not the first 
time that a deserter has had the assurance to address 
those he deserted, and while professing regard for 
their cause, denounce those who remained faithful 
to it. 

The history of our revolution furnishes a notorious 
instance of the kind. The deserter in that instance 



faile ' to deceive those whom he addressed, orto shake 
their confidence in those who remained faithful to 
them, and in return for his effrontery and desertion, 
they sent his name down to posterity with reproba- 
tion It remains to be seen whether such will be the 
fate of the deserter in this instance 

He com enced his speei^h with attacking the reso- 
lutious 1 offered to the Senate the 19th February, 
1847, and charges that they were int od- ced for the 
purpose of disunion. That you may judge for your- 
selves, whether they are liable to the charge or not, I 
insert them. 

" Resolved, That the territories of the United 
States belong to the several States composing this 
Union, and are held by them as their joint and com- 
mon property. 

" Resolved, That Congress, as the joint agent and 
representative of the States of this Union, has no 
right to make any law, or do any act whateve , that 
shall, directly or by its effects, mike any discrimina- 
tion between fe e Sta'es of this Union, by which any 
of them shall be deprived of its full and equal right in 
any territory of the United States, acquired or to be 
acquired. 

•• Kesolved, That the en-ctment of any law which 
should, directly or by i.s effects, deprive the citizens 
of any of the States of this Union from emigrating 
with their p operty into any of the territories of the 
United State , will make such discrimina'.ion, and 
would, therefore, be a violation of the Constitution, 
and ttie rights of the States from which such citizens 
emigrated, and in derogation of that perfect equality 
which belongs to them as members of the Union, and 
would tend directly to subvert the Union itself. 

'• Kesolved, That, as a fundamental principle in 
our political creed, a people, in forming a constitu- 
tion, have the unconditional right to form and adopt 
the government which they may think best calcula- 
ted to secure liberty, prosperity and happiness ; and 
that in conformity thereto no other condition is im- 
posed by the federal constitution on a state, in order 
10 her admission into this Union, except that its con- 
stitution be republican, and that the imposition of 
any other by Congress, would not only be in violatioa 
of the Constitution, but in direct conflict with the 
principle on which our political sj'stem rests." 

I hey are, as you see, confined to asserting princi- 
ples appertaining to the nature and character of our 
system of government, and making inferences 
clearly deducible from t cm, and which are of vital 
importance in the question between you an i the north 
in relation to the VVilmot Proviso, if the facts be, 
as the resolutions stated, there is no denying the in- 
ference ; and if both be true, than your right to emi-l 
grate with your slaves into the territories becomes \ 
unquestionable under the constitution. This he felt, 
and hence his bitt r deuncia ion of them. 

But he has corifined himself to denunc"ation with- 
out making an effort to refute the resolutions, by 
showing they contain error, cither as to the facts 
asserted, or inferences deduced He knew that to be 
beyond his power, and prudently avoided it. But, if 
the ret-olutioiis i e true, as he is compelled to admit 
they are by his silence, how can they be a firebrand 
as he call- them, or be justly chargeable with dis- 
union 1 rioi. Bentwn has his own way of jiroving 
things, which appears to be very Satisfactory to him- 
self, but to no one who will take the pains to examine 
his assertions and reasons. 



f 

V 



y 



v^ 



3 a 






Despairing of finding any thing like disunion in the 
reBolutioiis themselves, he seeks for it in the motive 
which he gratiiitonsly assigns to me for irt.oducing 
them. Hi fi.ot a^. erf?, ili;)t they are thi' protoiype 
of those adopted by IliO Legislature of Mis-ouri at 
their ate session, and t,'aen asserts that the only dif- 
ference between them i;;, that mine aim directly at 
disunion, a-.id theirs ultimately at the same thing, for 
which he otfers no reason, except that theirs pledge 
the state to co-operate \?itli the other slaveholding 
states. 

He thus assumes, that your aim as well as mine, is 
disunion; and this, while be is exerting himself to 
the u most to discredit me with you as a disuniouist ; 
for it is apparent his speech was intended to have its 
effects ;;entrally, as well as on his own constituents 
particularly. lie then drags in the Accomac resolu- 
tions to prove t at the object is a convention of the 
southern states, and that he assumes to be proof con- 
clusi.e, that (H.-^union is intended by my resolutions. 
He is quite horrified at the idea of your meeting in 
convemion, in order to consul on the best mode of 
saving both y urselves and the Union ; if, indeed, 
the madness of fanatics, and the treachery of desert- 
ers, should not make the latter impossible. He next 
asserts, in order to prove that disunion is theirobjeot, 
that they render the adjustment of the territorial 
question impiactitable, and that that was my motive 
for introducing them lie makes this assertion in the 
face of f ets perfectly well known to him ; bat the 
nortliern members, with a very few honorable ex- 
ceptions, had rejected every effort at compromise, and 
had declared their fixed dete mination not to accept 
of any. 

It was agains' this arrogant and uncompromising 
course 'hat 1 offered my re.-dlutions. it was then, 
they and not me, who took ground against compro- 
mise or adjustment. So far from this being true, I 
have ever been in favor of any fair ailjusiment, which 
was consistent with your constirutioual lights. Uf 
this 1 gave very strong proof at the very next session, 
by sujiporting t e bdi report d by Mr Clayton, 
which left the decision to the adjudication of th'^ 
cour s. The 1:5111 would have pa.^seci but for his asso- 
ciates, the Abolitionisis a d Free t>oilers, and the 
question in controver.-^y between t'le two section;!, in 
referen'-o to territories, finally adjusted ■ and yet, he 
knowing all this, had the eflVontery (to call it by no 
I arsber name) to charge me, and not them, as oppo- 
sed t any adjustment, ai.d that too for the base pur- 
pose of destroying the Union. 

liut all these assumptions were but i)reliininary to 
a charge still more audacious ; that I iim the real au- 
thor oi the V\ ilmot I'roviso. He calls it the Calhoun 
I'roviro, and tiays that 1 am bctt;:- entit ed to ts pa- 
ternity than Wilmot himself, which be aceompauies 
by stKjng denunciations of the proviso, jind a long 
enumeration o the many and great evils it has inllie- 
ted Oil the country. What effrontery ! He, the a- 
vowed advocate of the Wilmoi Proviso, acu.es mo 
of being its author , and denounce, it in the most un- 
measured terms in the same sjieech, in which ho 
praises it and declares him.'-elf to be in itb ftivor ! He 
would seem to be perlectly indifferent of thu'recoil oa 
himtelf, when his object is to assail mc. '1 here is no 
term n the lang lage, by which s eh a combinutioi 
of insincerity, inconsistency, and I raz n oUronter/ 
can b chiiracteriscd. The way in which he atlenn '.s 
to make out his assertions are iu keeping with thj r 
character 

He first assumes that the Wilmot Proviso and the 
Missouri t/Uinproiuise iiro i'leatioally the same, and 
then underlHKes to provi that 1 am the author of the 
latter, and, of cou.se, also, of the lormer This 
must bo a piece of Birunge mtcll gcuce to Mr. i^iy, 



and his friends and admirers. I had supposed there 
was no doubt whatever as to his being the real author 
of the Misso ri Compromise. It was he who devised 
the measure, introduced it into th House of Re re- 
sentatives, carried i' through, by his address, and 
gloried in the reputation of being its author. It is a 
little cruel to strip him of the honor > f being its au- 
thor at this late date, and to bestow it upon another, 
who 110 one ever suspecied of being so, until Colonel 
Benton discovered it. 

But, if he could really make out that I am f^e au- 
thor of the Missouri Compromise, he must go one 
step further to make me the author of the Wilmot 
Proviso Hem st prove the two measures to be 
identical: this he has not one or even attempted I i- 
stead of that he has adopted his usual course of assu- 
ming what he is incapable of , roving. It is a very 
eas way to reach a conclusion that is desired. In 
this, too, he has disclosed his wonderful aptitude to 
see what no one ever before saw, or suspected. Here- 
tofore all had sup ■ sed that they were very different 
things— that a com romise was essential to one, while 
the other necessarily excluded it — that one pre-sup- 
poses a conflict of opinion between parties, on a ques- 
tion of right or expediency, to have been adjusted on 
ground in whi h neither surrendered its rights or 
opinion. 

The other, on the contrary, pre- supposes a positive 
assertion of right or opinion, to the exclusion of all 
compromise. Thus, in the case of the Missouri com- 
promise, the north and the south differed on the con- 
stitutional question, whether Congress had the right 
to prohibit the introduction of slaves, as a condition 
of admitting a state into the union. Onecentended 
that Congress had the right to impose whatever con- 
dition it might think proper on a territory about to 
become a state, and fie other that it had no right to 
impose any exeept that prescribed by the constitution 
— that its government should be republican. 

The north, in that ckse, waived he claim of power, 
on the proposal made by Mr. Clay, to fix the northern 
limits of the terntory into which slaves might be in- 
troduced, at 3() 30. This proposal, alttiough made by 
a southern member, was taken up and carried b. the 
vote of the north, and thus became, in fact, their offer 
to compromise. The south, however, acqu es ed, 
without yielding her principles, or assenting or disj 
sentiug as to the power of Congress to exclude slavery 
from the territories. It was a compromise in which 
both waived, but neither yielded its opinion as to the 
power of C ngress. 

Very different was the case in reference to the Ore- 
gon bill, passed at the session preceding the last. — 
There the north contended for the absolute right to 
exclude slavery from all the territories, and announced 
their dotermniatioi' f^ do so, against the eflbrts of the 
south to f>uuipromiso the question, b\ extending the 
Mis'-juri Omipiomise line to the Pacific Ocean The 
oficr was scornfully refused, and the bill passed with- 
out any compiomise. Ii was intended, indeed, to be 
the practical assertion of the naked principle, that 
Congress had 'he power to claim for it, by the Wil- 
mot Proviso. It was the first act of the kind ever 
pas.'-cd, and was carried by the desertion from jour 
cause ol (,'ol Benton and tien. Houston. It is not 
surprising that the former should be desirous of con- 
I'ouhdiiig this far more odious measure, witii the Mis- 
souri Conipromi e, a much less odious one, in the 
hojie ol iiDtigatiijg \ our deep indignation, occasioned 
by his betrayal of you, on a question so vital to the 
south. 

i .it he had another motive, which will bo explained 
hereafter, and which it isstill more desirable to him, 
that ibu two should be confounded and regarded as 
identical. When it comes to be explained, it will be 
seen, that it was necessary that they should be, in 



3 



order to extricate him from a very awkward dilemma, 
in which he has placed himself. Job exclaimed " Oh 
that mine adversary had written a book ;" and well 
might I have exclaimed, oh that my adversary might 
make a speech. His adversary must have been very 
much like mine. We have nevtr heard whether h's 
had the folly to accommodate him as mine has had 
to accommodate me. 

1 have now eflfectually repelled his preposterous 
charge, that I am the author of the Wiluiot Proviso ; 
for it is utterly impossible that he can ever show that 
I am the author of the Missouri Compromise, or that 
that compromise and the Wilmot Prcviso are the 
same. But -s he has made it the position from which 
to assail me with the charge of disunion, and through 
me you including his own constituents, 1 shall follow 
him step by step, through the long process, by which 
he makes the desperate endeavor to establish his pre- 
posterous charge, by attempting to show that 1 have 
changed my opinion, as to the powers of Congres.'' over 
the territories. 

But my purpose is mor« to expose hisineonsis'ency, 
contradictions and absurdities, than to refute what 
he advances as argument. If he could prove to ■i 
demonstration, that I have changed my opinion, it 
could have no weight whatever, towards .showing 
that my resolution aimed a' disunion. Nor do I 
deem it a matter of any inportance in this connec- 
tion, whether my opinion has o< has not undergone a 
change, in the long period of thirty years, since the 
adoption of the Missouri Gompomise. At that time, 
the power of Congtess over the territories had re- 
ceived but little consideration, while for the last few 
years it has been a subject of vital interest to jou, 
and, as such, has been thoroughly investigated by 
myself and others, whose duty it has been to defend 
your rights in the councils of the Union, in reference 
to it. 

To substantiate the charge of chang ofopini n, he 
i troduced a c py of what purports to be a draft of a 
letter found among the pape.s of Mr Monroe. It is 
said to be in his hand wiiting It is without date, not 
signed, or addressed to any person by name, but con- 
tain expressions which leave no doubt that it was 
intended for General Jackson. This paper w s found 
filed away with another endorsed " luterrogatoiie.s, 
Misso ri— March 3d, 1820 " " To the Heads of De- 
partments and Attorney General." It contains two 
qucftions, of which the one pertinent to he present 
subject is in t e following words : " Has Co gress a 
right, under the powers vested in the Constitu ion, to 
make a resolution prohibiting slavery in a territory V 
The only material sentence in the draft of the let- 
ter, in reference to the i oint under consideration is 
in toe following words : "1 took the opinion in wri- 
ting to the administration, as to the constitutionality 
of restraining territories, which was explicit in favor 
of it " These are the exact woids of the sentence as 
finally corrected by its author. It is explicit as to the 
statement, that the administration, as a body, was 
in favor c-f the constitutionality, but furnishes no 
proof whatever of its members being unanimous, and 
of com se no evidence that I or any other particular 
member of the Cabinet, was in its favor. 

This deficiency Col Benton u dertakes to supply, 
first, from the interlining, and next a .Mtalement, pur- 
porting to be from the diary of Mr. Adams. Fir.-t, 
as to the interlining — instead o the expression which 
wa "explicit" as it now stands, it read in the origi- 
nal draft: "and the vote of every member was ex- 
plic t." These word were all stru. k out except 
"explicit," and in their place the following words 
were int rlined in the first instance : " which were 
unanimous and ;" afterwards the words " unanimous 
and" were struck out, which left the paper as it now 



stands. Now, I hold it to be clear, that the interlin- 
ing and striking out so far from s rengthening the in- 
ference that the Cabinet were unanimous, as Colonel 
Benton contends, it strengthens and sustains the very 
opposite. 

So far, then, it is certain the draft of the letter, 
standinj; by itself, ii stead of lurnishing proof that 
the cs^binct was unanimous, furnishes proof directly 
to the contrary. Even Ccd. Benton himself seems to 
have been conscious tha it furnished no satisfactory 
proof as to the unanimity of the cabinet, and endea- 
vors to supply this ("efe^t from statements purporting 
to be taken from the diary of Mr. Adams. From 
these, it would appear, that a meeting of he cabinet 
was he d on the 3d vf March, for the first time, to 
consider the compromise bill, and that according to 
the statement of Mr. Adams, the cabinet were una .- 
imous upon the question of constifc' tionality. It also 
appear that the President se .t him the two quest ons 
on he 5th of March, informing him at the same time 
that he desired answers in writing from the members 
of the cabinet, and the answers would be in time if re- 
ceived the next day. Such is the substance of the 
statement yiurporting to betaken from his diary. 

Connecti g this with the draft as it originally 
stooe, and the subsequent alterations, includin the 
date (if the memorandum filed with it, the natuial in- 
terpretation of the whole affair is, that Mr. Monroe 
drew up interrogations, and the draft of his letter in- 
tended for Gen Jackson, on the 4th of March, the 
date of the memorandum. It could not have been 
earlier according to the diary of Mr Adams, nor pro- 
bably later He did not date the draft, becau e the 
letter could not be finished and transmitted to Gen. 
Jackson, until after he had signed the bill The draft 
was draw upas it stood, in all probability on the basis 
of the opinion expressed on the third of March, the 
first dav of the meeting of the Cabinet, and which, 
at the time the diary states was " unanimous," and 
that doubts and uncertainty of opinion wereexpre.=sed 
by some of the memV.ers on the two subsequent days 
(the 5th and fith of March.) which caused the inter- 
lining and the first modification of the draft as it now 
stonds It is diflnpult to give any other explanation. 

I turn now to Col. Benton's reasoning upon the 
subject. He alledgcs that the words and vote of 
every member was explicit were stricken out, and 
"explicit" inserted, evidently to avoid violating the 
rules of the Cabinet secets, not to tell the opinion 
of members which the word "unanimous" would 
do. His statemetit contains two errors, as to fact. 
" Explicit" wasin the original draft and never struck 
out. Unanimous made no part of the original draft, 
as he supposes. It was a ] art of the interlining at 
first, but subsequently struck out. All this is appa- 
rent from a certified copy of the paper now before me. 
Thus his reasoning falls to the g.oiind. He carries 
the rule of Cabinet secrets very far. much farther 
than he does the same rule applied to the secrets of 
the Senate. 

Who ever heard that it was a violation of any rule 
of cabi' et secrets to say the administration was una- 
nimous or divided'? It is constantly said in refer- 
ence to their meetings, and yet he would have you 
believe, that it would have been a breach of confi- 
dence in Mr. Monroe, in writing a confidential letter 
to a friend of h'gh standing, to say that his cabinet 
were unan'mous and e.-^pccially as the question was 
one of con.^'titutionality, and not of policy. What 
member of any cabinet would be so base arid coward- 
ly, as to desire to conceal his ot'iniou on a constitu- 
tional question 1 Who, accordingly, did not know 
at the time, that the opinion of the cabinet of Gen. 
Washington was divided on the question of charter- 
ing a bank, and what side every member took I 



\ 



Col. Benton's exp'auation is destitute of even plau- cabinet, whether for or against, whether unanimous 

sibility, and leaves th'e draft to speak for itself, as it or divided, whether written or unwritten, were given 

stands; and that clearly against the Cnbinet being under cireunntances which would entitle them to but 

unanimous. Ttie diary of Mr Adams fi rnishes the little weight In the first place, there was no time 

only opposing evidence Now, I hold it, to be a sound for consideration. But one day elapsed from the 

rule, that a diary is no evidence of a factajrainst anv time the questions were put and spnt to the cabinet, 

one, but he who keeps it. The opposite rule would until a final decision was made. In the next place, 

place the character of every man at the mercy of the subject was little understood, and had at that 

whoever keeps a diary It is not my (bj-^ct to call in time received little consideration, 
fjuestion the veracity of Mr. Adams, but he was a man The great point in the discussion of the Missouri 

of strong prejudices, hasty temper, and much disposed question wns whether Congress bai a right to impose 

to view things as he desired. From his temperament any other limitatio i on the admission of a state into 

he would be liable to notice and mark what fell with- the Llnion. than that prescribed by the constitution, 

in his own view, and to pass unnoticed what did not. The question of its power over the territories did not 

I venture little in saying that if his diary should be come up until near the end nf the di.scusaion ; and, ac- 

published during the lifetime of thoso who were on cording to rav recollection, was scarcely noticed, much 

the ftnge with him, its statements would be contra- less discu-sed So loose, indeed, was the prevailing 

dieted by many, and confirm a 1 1 have stated But opinion at the time, that the power of legislatingover 

few statements from it have yet been brought to the them was believed to be derived from that portion of 

notice of tthe public, but even of these few two have the eonstiiu'ion, wh-'-h provides " that Congress shall 

been contradicted; (one if my recollection serves have power o dispos* of. and to make all needful rules 

ine,) related to Gen. Jackson, and the other, to a Mr and refrulations respecting the territories and other 

Harris, of Philadelphia, during the administration of property helnnging to the United ."^tates." 
Mr. Monroe. Such would seem to have been the opinion of Mr. 

Opposed to the statement of Mr. Adams, stands Monroe, judgin fiom his manner of propounding the 
the fact, that n • opinions as is admitted 1 y Col Ben- question. He puts it in language borrowed from the 
ton, are to be found on the files of the Department of provision "to make a eg la ion pro ibiting slavery 
State, nor any evidence that such opinions were ever in the territories" and not to make a law to prohibit, 
filed ; although the statement purporting to be from But since then, a more careful examination has esta- 
the diary of Mr. Adams says, that Monroe directed blished beyond all reasonable doubt, that this provi- 
ihem to be filed. One of two things would seem to sion was intended to be limitedto the disposition and 
be clear ; either he fell into an error, in making the regulation of the territories, regarded simply as 
entry, or that he failed to place them on file, in con- land or property, and that it co ferred no power 
sequence of some subsequent direction from the Pres- whatever beyond, much less, that of prohibiting .=Ia- 
ident. It is hardly possible, if they had been placed very under such circumstances, even if it could be 
on file, but that they would still be there, or some ev- made out beyond a shadow of doubt that the cabinet 
idence, in existence, that they had been there. My was unaniinoas, and that its members gave written 
own recollection is, that Mr. Monroe requested the opinion^ in the affirmative, it coul<i have little right- 
opinion of the members of his cabinet in writing ; but in settling the c-nstitutional question : and yet Col. 
that in consequence of want of time to prepare a writ- Benton, in his zeal to strike at me, and through me 
ten opinion, or some other cause, none was given, and at you and your cause, insists that Mr. Monroe's 
this I stated in th^ Senate, when General Dix cabinet iorever foreclosed the question against the 
{•■rought up the question as to the opinion of the Cab- south 

inet of Mr, Monroe, before the fa t was disclosed. To establish a doctrine so absurd, he by implici- 
that there was no written opinion on the files of the tion, lays down a rule, that the ouiiiion of Congress, 
department. I have entire confidence, that if any or any department of the government, once expressed 
was given, it amounted to no more, than the .simple on a constitutional question settles it forever ; aud 
affirmation, or negation of the power. The time did th's too when it is well krcn that it is in direct con- 
not admit the preparation of an elaborate opinion, tradiction to the course lie pursued in reference to 
and if any such i ad been given, it is impossible that the Ra k of the United States. The right of Co - 
I should forget it ; and nest to imposs ble that it gress to charter such a bank h d again and gain 
should so 1 ng have remained concealed from the been sanctioned by Congress, a"d every di'partment 
public. A.S to the insinuation, that I am the only of the government That he did not considerall this 
memberof the Cabinet of Mr. Monroe, who has Fince as setting the constitutional que.-tion, the long war 
been Secretary of State, and all others of like char- he wag<d against the institu ion proves conclufively. 
act er f pass hem with the silent contempt due to It is his fate to involve himself in dilemmas at ev- 
ineir bat,eness, and the source whence they came. cry step he take.s. and which he is either loo blind to 

This is, beside, a fact which cle.irly show.^, that see, or too reckless to regard Me has labored 

there had been a considerable change of views from through many columns to prove, that the cabinet of 

the -Ith to the fith of March ; 1 /ilindc to the f.ict. that Mr Monroe was unanimou-' in favor of the power of 

the draft of the letter intended fir (Jeneral Jackson Congress to exclude slavery from the territories, and 

was never sent It is inferrible from the fact, that that they gave written opinions to that eflVct, in 

there is no such letter to bo found among bis papers, order to prove that 1 am the r»al and responsible au- 

after the most diligent search, li is not improbable tlior of the Wilmot Proviso, without apparently per- 

tbat the same change of circumstances which c;iii-erl cciving, that if he could succeed, it would destroy his 

the striking out aiid inserting. ari<] which i'lliicel conclusion; for if the (-iibinet wa.s unanimous, how 

him not to finish and transmit the litter to (lencral eouM I a'one be responsible 1 He seems to have felt 

Jackson as intended, induced him also, finally, to the dilenuna afte he got into it, and has made a des- 

dispense with a written opinion, and will account peraie effort to escape from it. Fdt that purpo.'-e he 

why no such'opinion is found on file had to falsify the constituti'm, and to assert that the 

But supjiose the case to bo as Col. Benton con- veto jiowcr was vesto ' in the cabinet, and not in the 

tended ; of what importance is it, or how does it ena- President, when that instrument exjiressly p ovides, 

ble him to make out his charge, that the resolutions that "the ll.xeeutive power shall be vested in the 

■which ho 80 vehemently denounces, were introduced President ;" a' d that every bill shall bo presented to 

for the purposes of disunion 1 The opinion of tho the President for his approval or disapproval ; and 



/ 



that, if he approves of it, it shall become a law, and, 
if he disapproves it, shall not, unless passed by two- 
thirds of both houses of Congress He follows up 
this false assertion by another : that 1 had one-fifth 
of the veto power in my hands, when, in fact, 1 had 
no part, and when the paper, on which he relies to 
make < ut his charge, shows on its face, that the 
cabinet ' onsisted of six and not five, and of course, if 
it had th« veto power, but one sixth part was vested 
in me But this double mistake is not sufficient of 
itself to support his charge. The question would still 
remain. How could I be solely re-'ponsible, when, ac- 
cording to his own showing, 1 had but a fifth of the 
power 1 Upon what principle of justice could I be 
made responsible for the acts of the other three, or as 
the fact really is— the other four 1 To escape from 
this dilemma, he attributes to me the most command- 
ing influence over the cabinet — so commanding as 
to be able to draw over to my side a sufficient number 
of members to make a majority ; and this, too, when 
it is apparent from the paperfrom which he draws his 
itatement, that Mr. Monroe had no doubt as to the 
power of Congress I then, in order to command a 
majority, would have had to control three other mem- 
bers against him, which Col Benton seems to think 
I could have done very easily, if I had thought proper. 
He seems to have a mo.et e.xaltcd o inion of my abili- 
ties, far more so than I have of his Wherever 1 am 
placed, whether in Mr Monroe's, or Mr. Tyler's ca- 
binet ; whether in the Senate, or the House of Re- 
presentatives, or in the chair of the Vice President, I 
alone, in his opinion, am re.'^ponsible on all questions. 

I have now traced him through the long process by 
which he attemp's to prov that I am the author of 
the Wilmot Proviso, and by c I'Sequence, of all the 
mighty evils that have followed in its train, and 
which he exhibits wi h so much parade ; but, after 
all. mighty as he represents them to be, they are not 
so much so, as to preveut him from declaring himself 
to be a Wilmot Proviso man He folio s up his 
charge, by asserting that the effects of dis -lo ing the 
fepinion of the cabinet by Mr. l)ix ntroduc ng the 
paper, compelled me to close my lips, abandon my 
resolutions, aud to -ive up my intention of makin.' 
the !' the subject of a general debate at the next ses- 
sion, with the intention, to use his own language, to 
make a chance for myself at the nest Presidential 
election t y getting up a test which no northern man 
could stand All this is just as erroneous, both as to 
facts and inferences, as ate his i-tatements and reasons, 
in his vain attempt to make me the author of the 
Wilmot Proviso. 

If by abundaning my resolutions, he means, that it 
compelled me to abandon their principles on a single 
position taken I y them, or to be silent as to the con- 
stitutional power of Congress over the territories, his 
assertion would befalse throughout The resol tions 
were introduced, as he states, the 19th day of July, 
1847, near the close of the short session. So far from 
abandoning them, or from keeping silent, I dissussed 
the principles on which they rest in the debate on the 
bill to establish the te ritorial governmentof Oregon, 
at great length, at the next ses.^ion, and established 
them by arguments that have never yet, and, I will 
venture to say, never will be, refuted. Few have 
undertaken to refute hem, and those who have un- 
dertaken it signally failed Others, like Col. Ben- 
ton, have taken the more vrudent course, to cry out 
fir brand; disua on — instead of attempting to refute 
them. 

But if he mean« that 1 was r'eterred fr m intro- 
ducing my resolutions at the naxt session, hy the 
cause which he assigns, a imple statement of facti 
will give his assertion a flat contradiction. He has 
made his statemeat so m to make the impreesiou that 



Mr. Dix introduced the paper at the same time that I 
introduced mv resolutions, or at farthest, early in the 
next session ; for otLerwise it would not suffice to 
show that it was owing to its ntroduction, and the 
disclosures it made, that I was deterred from ntro- 
Oucing them, as he states. Th 'act is no .so. The 
session commenced the first Monday of December, 
1847. and Mr Dix did not introduce the paper until 
the 26th f July, 1848, nearly eight months subse- 
quent, and one month after 1 had fu ly discussed the 
principles of my resol tions. Did he see that 11 thi-i 
would have been manifest at once without a word 
from me, if he had give i the dates 1 And was not 
that hi- reason for not giving them 1 

Col. Benton seems to be conscious that it was ne- 
cessary for him to explain why he had not assailed 
my resolutions, and the base and corrupt motives he 
attributes to me for introducing them, long before, 
and in his place in the Senate ; accordingly he 
has attempted to make one. He asserts that Mr. 
Calhoun's resolutions are those of the Missouri Leg- 
islature. They are identical One is copied from the 
other. When the original is invalidated, the copy is 
of no avail. I am answering his resolutions, and 
choose to do it. It is just and proper that 1 should 
do so He is the prime mover and head contriver. I 
have had no chance to answer him in the Senate, and 
it will not do to allow him to take a snap judgment 
upon we in Missouri, in carrying disunion resolu ions 
in my wn state, which he has been forced to abacdon 
in the Senate. Duty to the country requires me to 
answer h:m, an I personal reasons reinforce that pub- 
lic duty 

His explanation then, is, that notwithstanding his 
burning zeal to defend the Union and his own charac- 
ter against those w'cked resolutions, " he could get 
no chance before to answer them." What! could 
get no chance from February, 1847, until June, 1849, 
(the date of his speech) a period of upwards of two 
years'? Could get no chance when they were first in- 
troduced and discussed 1 None, during the long ses- 
sion which followed, and which lasted more than 
eight months 1 None, during the long and full dis- 
cussion on the Oregon Territorial bill, when the prin- 
ciples of the resolutions formed the basis of the argu- 
ment on the side of the south? None, to reply to me, 
who fully discussed, and, I may say, established, them 
beyond controversy 1 None, during the discussion of 
the report of the select committee, of which Mr (Clay- 
ton was chairman 1 None, on the discussion of the 
bill from the House of Representatives, which ap- 
plied the Wilmot Proviso to the Oregon Territory, 
and which was passed by his vote, and his friend Gen- 
eral Houston's '? None, during the whole of the last 
session, and still more wonderful, none in making his 
last speech 1 1 say none, for he confined himself to 
denuuciation and abuse of the resolutions, without 
even attempting to answer them. No, he never could 
get, and never can get a chance to answer them. — 
For every other purpose, he can get a chance whenever 
he pleases No one is better at getting a chance when 
he is disposed. He ha»l no difficulty in getting a 
chance to pour out a torrent of abuse, to empty seats, 
against the late Oeneral Kearney, day after day for 
the greater part of a week, and that too, just at the 
close of a sesiion, to the utter disgust of the Senate, 
and at the hazard of defeating many bills then ready 
for final action. I might go on and repeat similar 
questions, until they would fill pages, but enough has 
been said to prove that his explanation is puerile and 
hollow. 

He had many fair chances to answer the resolu- 
tions, and could have made one, if he desired it, at 
any time ; but there were two reasons which prevent- 
ed him. The first is, that although he bad made up 



\ 



6 



his mind to desert you and your cause before the in- 
troduction of the resolutions, he saw the hazard, and 
was unwilling; to take that step hastily. The Mis- 
souri resolutions forced him to di close his intentions, 
and t proclaim his desertion, before he was fully 
prepared to execute his design ; and hence the depth 
to which they have excited his ire. The other is, 
that he had too much discretion to address such a far- 
rago to a body too well iL^rmed to be imposed upon 
by old, stale, and oft-rcpeaic^d charges. He knew, 
besides, that they would have been promptly met and 
repelled, and that ihe antidote would go with the poi- 
son. He knew this from e.xperieuce. He had tried 
it before It failed most signally. 

It was in the session of 1S47, a few days after I bad 
introduced the resolutions. In that attack he parad- 
ed nearly in thfi same words, all that he has charged, 
in this, about the Florida treaty, Texas, and almost 
every other subject. He had taken time and prepared 
deliberatel_y. It was given out that he would demolish 
me. Ihe Senate was crowded by those who wished 
to witness the sacrifice. I rose and repelled off hand 
his charges I leave those who were present to decide 
with what effect. It was certainly not to his gratifi- 
cation or satisfaction Ho did not even attempt a 
rijoinder. But what becomes of his apology, that 
he bad no chance to reply to my resolutions 1 They 
bad been introduced but shortly before, and th?n he 
had a full L-hance to answer them. He then assailed 
every act of my life, which he thought he could dis- 
tort, so as to make a p ausible charge against me. 
Why then omit to answer resolutions, whith he now 
holds up as the worst and most ol.jeclionable of all 1 
Can any answer be given, except that he is either not 
sincere in what he now asserts, or that the time had 
not then arrived, at which he could safely venture to 
betray jou 1 

But, according to his own statement, he is impell- 
ed, in making his attacks, bj' private grief, as well 
as public eon.siderations. He says, 1 instigated at- 
tacks on him for twenty years. I instigate attacks 
on him! He must have a very exalted op nion of 
himself. I never thought of such a thing. We 
move in difiFercnt spheres. My course is, and has 
beer, to have nothing to do with him. 1 never want- 
ed his support, n r dreaded his opposition lie took 
the same ground in his speech, just referred to, and 
endeavored to establish the charge by what purjiort- 
ed to be an extract from a letter, which he states was 
delivered to him by some person unnamed, and was 
written by an unknown person to an unknown j)erson. 
Ho introduced it into the Senate in a manner to 
make the impression that I was its author I arose, 
and asked him if he intended to assert that 1 was. 
He stood mute at first, but was forced to admi I was 
not. 1 hen repelled his charge with a Sforn, which 
the base in.-inuaiion that 1 had any knowledge or con- 
nection with it whatever, deserved. He was covered 
with confusion ; and yet be lias the ctfronler}' to in- 
troduce it again to the public, accompanied with the 
Bam'3 uitinuiition which covered him with disgrace at 
its first introduction. 

But the deepest wound, it seems, was inflicted by 
a statement in my address to the people of (harles- 
ton, on my return houie after ihe session of 1M7 and 
IHl.S, that he voted for the bill establishing the terri- 
tory of I iregon, containing the princijile of the Wil- 
mot J'roviso, and that he and ( ieneral Houston, were 
the only two southern members who voted for it — 
that without their voles it would ikot have been do- 
leated, followed b> the exjirefcsion of an opinion that 
for so doin^ they d. served the reprobation of the 
wiiole south. Neither of them have ever denied the 
tru h of my statement, nor ever can. J:Jvery woid is 
true, as the jourualfl of tbo ^icQate show. Iho state- 



ment itself is in plain language, and free from distor- 
tion or exaggeration. The fact stated, related to offi- 
cial acts which it was important my constituents 
should know In expressing mv opinion, I abstained 
from impeaching motives All was done within the 
rules of decorum, and those that govern parliamen- 
tary proceedings. Wherein then consists the of- 
fence 1 I am ar, a loss to perceive, except the princi- 
ple be adopted: "that the greater the truth the 
greater the libel." It may be that it was regarded 
as an offence, because it was calculated to embar ass 
him, and thwart what he then meditated, and has 
since carried into execution — an open desertion to the 
abolitionists. 

1 pass now to his nest charges. He a-serts that I 
gave away Texas, and to make it out be asserts that 
Texas belonged to the United States when the treaty 
with Spain was made, by w ich sh ced d Florida to 
us. He claims that Texas was a part of Louisia a, 
and that its boundary extended to the Rio Grande ; 
that it was all slave territory, and looked to us as the 
natural outlet for their great increasing slave popula- 
tion ; and finally, that it was surrendere 1 by the trea- 
ty of Florida, made in 1819, during the administra- 
tion of Mr Monroe, of which 1 was one of the n. em- 
ber . On this statement he rests his charge that I 
gave away Texas. 

It is diflicult for one who lacks sincerity, and is ac- 
tuated by vio ent passions, to escape the greatest in- 
conconsistencv aid contradit tion in defending him- 
self or a sailing others, in making a long speech. — 
Ben on furnish s a strong illustration of the truth of 
this position, and never more so, than in making the 
above statement. In order to aggravate the act of 
giving away Texas, which he chargt s me with, he 
has made assertio s entirely inco sistent with the 
grounds be took, and the course he pursued while he 
question f the annexation of Texas was before he 
Senate. He now asserts that the boundary of Texas 
as part of Louisiana extended to the Kio Grande, 
when the treaty of Floriiia was made, in the very 
teeth of the assertions he made, when the question of 
annexation was hef re the Senate. In the speech ho 
made in May 1844, on the treaty forannexing Texas, 
he asserted that " The Texas which we acquired by 
the treaty of 1803, (that of Louisiana) never ap- 
jiroached the Kio tjrandc, cxceptinj near its mouth." 
To show that by " near its mouth !" he did not moan 
that it touched the river, he said speaking of Tamau- 
lipas, one of the states of Mexico, that '• it covered 
both sides o the river from its mouth for some hun- 
dred miles up " He asserted in the same speech that 
all New Mexico, Chihuahua, Coahuila and Tamauli- 
pa."! made no part of the Texas which we acquired by 
the treaty o Louis ana He estimates the part bo- 
longing to Mexico lying on the east side of the Kio 
'xrande to be 2,()t)0 miles long, (the whole length of 
the river,) and some hundred broad, and concluded 
by saying that " lie washed his hands of all attempts 
to dismember the rep bli of Mexico by seizing her 
dominions in New Mexico, Chihuahua, Coahuila and 
Tamaulipas." 

These were his assertions solemnly made, and, as 
he states, alter the fullest exaiuiniition, when his ob- 
ject was to defeat the treaty which I negotiated with 
the commissioneis of Texas for its annexation For 
that purpose, ho attempted to show that the treaty 
covered a largo part ot Mexico, which never belong- 
ed to Texas, although the treaty specified no boun- 
dary, . nd left Ihe boundary open on the side of Mez- 
ii^o, intentionally, in order to settle it by Treaty with 
her. But now, when hisoVject i to show that Igave 
away Texm by the treaty of Florida, he holds a very 
difl'crent language. He does cot, indeed, say in so 
many words, that TejLas covered ^the whole region 



from the Sabine to the Rio Grande, for that would 
have been too openly and plainly a direct contra- 
diction to what he contended f r, when his object 
vas to defeat annexation ; but he does the same 
thing, in a more covered and objectionable way, by 
Ufing language that could not fail to make that 
impression on all who heard him, or who may read his 
speech. 

He goes further. In order to agrgravate the charge 
against me, he becomes apparently a warm advocate 
of slavery extension, as he calls it, and uses strong 
language to show the value of Texas to the south, in 
that respect. He says it was all slave territory ; that 
it was looked to as liie natural outlet of the southern 
states with their increasing slave population ; and it 
was large enough to mnke six large states, or ten 
common ones, ^^uch is his language, when his ob- 
ject is to prove that 1 gave away Texas. You would 
suppose f om this language, that he was a slavery x- 
tensionist, as he calls all those who i efend your rights, 
an ■ that he placed a high value on Texas, as an out- 
let for your slave population, and to prpi=ervc . our 
just influence and weight in the Union. O.ie would 
conclude, hat with these feelings and views, he would 
have been a strong advocate of the treaty that was 
rejected by the tenate, which proposed to annex 
Texas without any restriction whatever in relation to 
slavery so as to leave it, to use hi« own language, as 
the outlet to your increasing slave population. In- 
stead of that, he made the most strenuous effort to 
defeat it, and contributed not a little owards it. He 
went further. After its defeat, he moved a string of 
resolutions, containing provisions for its admission, 
andamong OJhers, one which proposed t divide Texas 
into two parts, as nearly equal as possible b a line 
running nort and south, and to allot the > astern to 
you, and the western to the abolitionists, to the en- 
tire exclusion of your "inerea ing slave population." 
It can hardly be that he forgot all this in delivering 
his speech ; but if not, what matchless eflfrontery and 
inconsistency, lo make the charge he does agai st 
me 1 There weuld indeed seem to be no limits to his 
audacity and inconsistency, and he appears to have 
selected Texas as a proper field to make the greatest 
display of them. 

As if to cap the climax, after having so deliberate- 
ly asserted, and so strenuously maintained, that the 
western boun ary of Texas did not extend o the Rio 
Grande, he placed, a short time afterward, his vote 
on record, that it did, by v ting for the bill declaring 
war against Mexico, 'i he bill assumed it did, in as- 
serting that the blood shed on the eastern bank, was 
blood shed on the American s il, which could not be, 
unless Texas extended to the Rio Grande. If it did 
not, the war stands, without justification. If it did 
not, the march of our army to ^he Rio Grande was 
an invasion of a neighboring country, unauthorized 
by constitution or law ; and jet Colonel Benton, who 
bad but a short time before aeclared solemnly, . fter 
full invcbtigation, tliat all the east bank of the river 
for some hundred miles wide, belonged lo the Mexi- 
can Republic ; and emphatically declared " he wash- 
ed bis ban s of all attempts to d smember the Mexi- 
can Republic, by seizing her dominions. New Mexi- 
co, Chihuahua, Cohuila, and Tamaulipas," voted for 
the bill! He went further. He reported it. as the 
chairman of the Committee o . Military Affairs, in 
total disregard of his own motion, made the day be- 
fore, to reler so much of the message of the President 
as 1 elated to dec'anng war, to its appropriate com- 
mittee—that on Foreign Relations. Comment is un- 
necessary. 

But 1 am not yet done with Texas, nor with the 
effrontery and absurdity of the charges he mrde 
against me in reference to it. He says 1 gave it away ; 
gave it away by the Florida treaty. How could I 



give it away by that or any other treaty 1 The potr- 
er to make treaties belongs to the President and ne- 
ver was invested in me It was, at the time, invest- 
ed in Mr. Monroe, as President of the United States. 
Nor did I negotiate it. I was only one member of 
the cabinet, and the youngest of khe whole. How 
could 1, then, give away Texas 1 To prove the 
charge, he resorts to his old patent reasoning ; but [ 
V as all powerful — so much so, as to make the Pre- 
sident and lithe member- of the cabinet mwre cy- 
phers. He would have it that they were but tools in 
my ' ands ; and 1 alone was responsible for all that 
was don . Well- if he will have it so, I meet the 
charge directly. It is no true, that the Florida trea- 
ty gave away Texas. 1 did not believe, when tho 
treaty was made, that Louisi na extended, or ever 
did extend, to the Rio Grande, or even to the Neuces, 
and that it was uncertain whether it extended i e- 
yond the Sabin«. I knew it was claimed to extend 
far beyond even to the Rio Grande ; just as we claim- 
ed the whole of Oregon, and with just about as little 
title. I have seen nothing to change this opinion ; 
on the contrary, if my informant is correct, there are 
now documents in the State Department, oo ained 
within the last few years, which conclusively prove, 
that Louisiana never extended an inch beyond the 
Sab ne. 

In reply to Col. Benton's assaults as to th^ treaty, 
I annex an abstract from a speech in answer to him, 
when be ma e the same charge in 1847. It was an 
off-hand r ply to apremeditated attack. 

The Florida Treaty forming another subject of at- 
tack, figured also on that occasion, in connection wiih 
annexation ; and what he said now is but a repeti- 
tion of what he said then. He then, as now, made 
me responsible for that treaty, although 1 was but 
one of six members of Mr. Monroe's Cabinet, ndtho 
youngest of its member-; responsible, without ad- 
vancing a p rticle of proof that I even gave it my 
support or approbation. He rests the charge on 
seme disclaimer, as it seems, t! at the then Secretary 
of State, (Mr. Adams) has, at some time, made, that 
he was not responsible for thr- treaty. The Senator 
may be ight as to that ; but how can that by any 
possibility show that I was responsible "? But I am 
prepared to take my full share of responsibility, as a 
member of iVlr. Monroe's Cabinet, without having 
any particular agency in forming the treaty, or influ- 
ence in inducing the Cabinet to adopt it. I then 
thought, and still think it a good treaty ; and so 
thought the Senate of th Uui'ed States, for, if my 
memory does not deceive me, it received every vote 
of the Senate. [A Senator: " Yes, every vote "] It 
then received the unanimous vole of the Senate, 
promptly given. Of course, if that treaty was the 
cause of the war with Mexico, as the Senator seems 
to suppose, this body is as much the aui-hor and cause 
of the war, as the individual on whom he is now so 
anxious to fi.x it. 

I have said it is a ^ood treaty, not without due re- 
flection. We acquired much by it. It gave us Flori- 
da ; an acquisition not only important in it.-elf, but 
aWo in reference' to the wtiole southw stern frontier. 
T here was, at that time, four po>verful tribes of In- 
dians, two of whom, the Creeks and t.jhoctaws, were 
contiguous to Florida; and the i wo oihers. the Chick- 
asaws and Cherokees, were adjom ng. They were 
the most numerous and powerful tribes in the United 
States, and from th 1 ; ^-^ition, were exposed to be 
acted on and excited ag^xinst us from Florida. It 
was important that this state of things should termi- 
nate, which could only be done by the obtaining pos- 
session of Florida. 

But there weie other and powerful considerations 
for the acquisition. We had a short time before ex- 
tinguished the Indian title to large tracts of country 



8 



in Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia, lying upon 
streams and rivers which passed through Florida to 
the Gulf— land in a great measure valueless, w thout 
ttie right of navigating them to their mo ths. The 
acquisition of Florida g<ive us this right, and enabled 
us LO bring into successful cultivation a great extent 
of fertile lands which have added much to the in- 
creased production of our great staple, cotton. An- 
other important point was effected by the acquisition. 
It terminated a very troublesome dispute wiiti Spain, 
growing out ol the capture of iSt. Marks and Pensa- 
cola by Gen. Jackson, in the Seminole war; and, 
finally, it perfected our title to Oregon, by cedmg to 
us, whatever right Spain had to that territory." 

Nor is his next charge in reference to the tract of 
land lying west of Arkansas and south of 36 30, less 
baseless. He asserts that this strip of land, as he 
calls it, was enough to form two states, and that I 
" required this strip of land to be given up to the In- 
dians, as a permanent abode ; and that it was lost to 
the slave states." This, like his other assertions, is 
without foundation. He makes no attempt to esta- 
blish it, but leaves it to be inferred from the mere 
statement that '' 1 was at the time Secretary of War, 
and member of Mr. Monroe's administration." He 
knew It would not do to go into details, as they would 
refuse his charge, and hence the vagueness of the 
language in which it is couched What he omitted 
1 shall supply. The history of the affair may be told 
in a lew words. 

'J he Choctaw tribe of Indians, at the time, inhabi- 
ted the state of Mississippi, and occupied almost its 
entire territoiy, General Jackson and Cieneral Hines, 
of Mississippi, were appointed by Mr. Monroe to 
treat wiih them, for the purpose of obtaining a ces- 
sion of a portion of their lands. They succeeded in 
obtaining a large trad, lying in the very centre of 
the stae, and extending from Pearl river to the Mis- 
sissippi, in exchange for all the territory lying be- 
tween the Red river and the Arkansas, west of a line 
drawn from the point of the Arkansas, opposite to 
where the lower line of the Cherokee Indians struck 
it to a point on Ked river, three miles below the 
mouth of Little river, and westwardly to the source 
of tho Canadian fork of the Aikausas, and a line 
drawn due south to Ked river. 

But the treaty, in making the exchange, made no 
provision to change the character of the Indian tiile 
to the land given in Arkansas in exchange for that, 
which we received in Mississippi. iNor did it make it 
the permanent abode of ih't Indians, as he asserts. 
They hold it just as they held the land they ceded in 
Mississipt»i. Nothing was lost by tho slaveholJing 
states, but a great deal gained by the treaty A 
laige and valuable tract in the very heart of the cot- 
ton region, and l>ing convenient to market was ac- 
quired by Mississippi ; without the loss of a single acre 
to her sisters of the slaveholding states. So mat the 
great sympathy which he profe.-ses tor the slave states, 
in this case, is misapplied. If he chooses to consider 
me responsible for the treaty, instead of Mr Monroe, 
and tbe commissioners who niude it, and the Senate 
that approved of it, he is welcome to do so, however 
contrary to the truth ol the ca-o 

Another, and only another treaty was made with 
that tribe, while I remained in the War Department. 
1 was ttie commissioner on tho part of the Uiiitod 
SStaies, and, ot course, acknowledge my responsibility 
for its provisions Instead ol rtMjuiriiig a sirip to bo 

fiven lo the Indians for their permiiiient abode, tho 
iidians receded to the United States by treaty a 
part, and a most, valuable part without our ceding an 
inch lo them. The entire lino was moved westward, 
as far as I'ort Smith, on the Arkansas, and thence by 
« liue south to the lied river. Nor did it make the 



slightest change in the title to what remained to th6 
Indians, or provided a permanent home for them, aS 
he would have you believe. So much for this charge 
and its author. 

The next is of a kindred character. He states it 
stil more vaguely ; so much so that 1 am at a loss to 
know to which one of tho many treaties made with 
the Indians about the region in question, he refers. 
He speaks of a slice forty miles wide and ihree bun-- 
dred long, " cat otf from Arkansas and given to the 
Indians;" " that it was done by the Indian treaty- 
treaty made by a protege' of Mr. Calhoun's ;" and 
adds that I was Vice President at the time, but gives 
no boundary and avoids naming what treaty it was, 
with what tribe of Indians made, or the name of the 
person he calls my '■ protege " It is an indictment, 
without specification of time, place, or circumstances, 
to which it is impossible to make a specific answer. 
But, fortunately such an one is not necessary to repel 
it effectually, without descending into details, which 
it is fair to presume, were omitted, because they 
could not be given without exposing the absurdity of 
the charge liis admission that the treaty was made 
while 1 was Vice President, furnishes me with ample 
means for that purpose. 

It is sufficient o repel it, to state, that duri- g the 
whole period that I filled the office of Vice Presi ent 
that of President was filled either by Mr Adams or 
G' n. Jackson, nd that it was my fortune to be in 
opposition to i olh, and the object of their strong 
dislike, as must be well kn w to all. 1 not only had 
no influence with either, but was the object of their 
persecution. My support of any measure, or recom- 
mendation of any individual, was sufficient to defeat 
the one and rejvct the other; and yet Coi Benton, 
who is familiar with all this, assumes, m making his 
charge, that 1 am responsible for a treaty made by 
either one or the other of them, it matters not which. 
It was going far to make me solely responsible for 
the acts of the administration of which 1 was no mem- 
ber ; but to make me responsible, not only for them, 
but for the acts of those hat were deadly hostile to 
me, is a piece of extravagance beyond the reach of any 
individual but tbe author of the charge. Even he, in 
this instance, seems to have a misgiving that he has 
gone too far; and in order to give some color to so 
wild a charge, adds that the treaty was negotiated by 
a protege of mine. He must have been a fortunate 
man bearing that relation to me, to have got an ap- 
pointment from either of the two admiiiistratiims. I 
have examined all the Indian treaties relating to the 
region in question made during their admimst atioiis, 
in order to ascertain who this lucky individual could 
be, but have been unable to discover him. There is 
not a single treaty negotiated during the period, that 
was negotiated by any individual who had any claim 
to b called a protege of mine. 

But why charge me with being the author of a 
measure, by which these large tracts, suthcieut as he 
savs, to make two states, were lost lo theslavw states 
and given away to the Indians, when the authors of 
the measure by which they were given away, are 
known to all, and to none better than Col Benton< 
They were the measures of Mr Adams and General 
Juckson and their administrations. One or the other 
made all the treaties y which the old merely posses- 
sory title of the Indians to their lands, were converted 
over tbe whole territory, into a permanent right of 
possession, and property, and made the permanent 
home of the Indians, to uso his own expression. — 
There was no treaty made while I filled the War De- 
partment, in Mr. Monroe's administration, which 
made any such alterations in tho titlus of Indians to 
lands west of Iho Mississippi, or any where else.tomy 
knowledge. 



The making of Indian treaties containing stipula- 
tions for permanent titles, and their removal west of 
the Mississippi, cinstitutpc) a large pnrt.inn of the 
dwings 'itthose afliuinistraMoiis, anil much of that, on 
which they rested their reputation Much the greater 
part, was 'Jhe work of General Jackson's diuinistra- 
tion, with which Col. lienton waa intimately asso- 
ciated, and over which he had sufficient influence to 
make himself responsibl for no small share of its 
doings, especially as to what related to the west. In 
(attempting now to shuffle off his port on of the re- 
sponsibility, and that of the administration, and to 
place it on me, who was hostile to it, speaks badly for 
his manliness, or regard for the character of the ad- 
ministration of General Jackson, ior which he pro- 
fesses so much attachment and admiration. He 
would hardly have ventured in the lite-time of the 
'* Old Hero," to make the heavy charge he has, 
against measures, of which he was the author, and on 
^bich he so much prided himself. 

In bis eagerness to assail me, he has lost, not only 
his discretiiin, but his memory. In order to make 
out that the anti-slavery party of the nonh duly ap- 
preciate the great service that I had done their cause, 
he says '"that they gave proof of their gratitude, 
that i was then a candidate for the Vies Presidency, 
and became the favorite of the north, beating' even 
Mr. Adams himself on the free soil track," forgetting 
what he had siid just before, that I waa>Vice Presi- 
deB' at the time, when he well knew ha T was ect- 
ed for th first time Vice President with Mr. Adams, 
and of course, the vote of the north could not have 
been given me for the reason he ass'gns. 

His next charge is, that 1 supported the abolition 
of slavery in a state. Among his other traits, Uol. 
Benton is distinguished for charging on others, w at 
he knows he is guilty of himself. iViost men, from 
prudenc and a sense of propri-ety. cautiously abstain 
from assailing others for what they know they may 
in turn th mselves be justly assailed. Not so with 
him. He is one of the few who are ever more fierce 
rn their assaults when they know they can be assailed 
for the same thing. They seem to delight in drag- 
ging down others t ' their own level, and to have a 
concealed joy in thinking that others partake of their 
own deformity. Itisatrai so detestable, that those 
who are di.<tinguished or it., ar usually likened to a 
notorious personage reproving sin. Col. Benton has 
strikingly displayed this trait of character in the pre- 
sent charge 

He well knows how utterly false he was to you 
throughout, on the Texas question. He took,|,as has 
been stated, an active part to defeat the treaty of an- 
nexation, negotiated by me on the part of the United 
States He knows that it contained no provision 
that CO ntenanced the abolition of slavery in any por- 
tion of Texas. I was strongly urged, during the ne- 
gotiation, to insert a provision to extend the Missouri 
compromise line across Texas to its Western boun- 
dary, and was informed that it would aid in securing 
a constitutional majority in the Senate, in its fnvor. 
I peremptorily refused He knows that he oflFered a 
proposition to a olish it in one half of the 
uhole of Texas, and that by a line not drawn 
east and west, but north and south, so as lo hem in 
the south on all sides, by abolition states. He also 
knows that his friend and supporter on the occas'on, 
Mr Hay ward, of North Caiolina, went still farther, 
and offered resolutions to extend the ordinance of 
1787, not only over 11 of Texas, but even all the ter- 
ritorief Ijiog west of Arkansas and Missouri, and south 
of 36 30, with, however, the proviso excepting the 
portion of Texas lying south of a line running east 
and west in the 34th degree o parallel of latitude — 
The preBumptioD is Etrong,itbat in offering bia resolu- 



tions he acted with his friend Col. Benton, to whqae 
course he adhered on the Texan question. But be 
that as it mny, certain it is, he sat mute. He raised 
no voice of iiidignatiou against a measure which 
proposed to excinde slavery forever from that 
very region which he « barges rae with having 
given away to the Indians, and losing it to 
the south. As bad as the policy of Mr. Ad- 
ams fand General Jackson may be in reference lo 
that region, they did not exclude slavery. The Indi- 
ans who occupy it are slavth- Iders, and having an in- 
terest in common with you, may be regarded as faith- 
ful allies on that vital question. The resolutions of 
his friend, Mr Hayward, were de'^igned to deprive 
you of this advatage ; and ye Col Benton now raises 
!• is voice in loud denu elation against m , upon tbe 
false charge of giving away th territory to the Indi- 
ans, while he approved, at least by his silence, of ex- 
cluding you entirely from the territory, and one half 
of Texas to boot, and to extend the principle of the 
ordinance of '87 over the whole, including Texas and 
the territories. So much for his own position in refer- 
ence to the subject of the charge. 

It now remains to show that it is, like all his other 
charges, destitute of foundation. He res s his charge 
that I abolished slavery m Texas, on the fact that I 
was the Secretary of State, and that I selected the 
resolution, as it passed the House of Representatives, 
instead of the amendment originally proposedby him, 
as the basis on which to annex Texiss. Thus far, he 
has departed from his usual rule, and stated the facts 
correctly. I shun no responsibility. 1 am willing to 
take the whole on this occasion ; but it is due to the 
President and the members of his administration_ to 
say, they were unanimous in favor of the selection 
made. I not only selected it, but assigned my rea- 
sons for making it, in a despatch to our then Mini.^ter 
to- Texas, Mr. Donnelson. 1 assigned them, because 
I anticipated there would be an attempt to undo 
what was done, after the exfiration of Mr. Tyler's 
administration. This 1 was resolve d to prevent, by 
stating reasors for the selection that could noi be 
overruled. The aitempt, as 1 suspected, was made, 
and the late President has since been arraigned 1 o- 
fore the public by two friends and asso iates of Cot. 
Benion, (Blair and Tappan.) because be could n )t be 
forced to overrule what his predeees.-ior had done. — 
The following isan extract from the despatch, 

" It is not deemed necessary to state at large the 
(iround.s on which his decision rests (The President.) 
It will be sufficient to state, briefly, that the provi- 
sions of the resolution, as "t came from the House, ara 
more simple in their charact. r, may be more read.ly, 
and w th less difficulty and expense, carried into effect; 
and that the great object contemplated by them is 
much less exposed to the hazard of ultimate defeat. 

That they are more simple in their character a 
very few remarks will suffice to show. According to 
the resolution as it came from the House, nothing 
more is necessary than that ih« Congress of Texas 
should be called together, its consent given to the 
provisions contained in it, and the adoption of a con- 
stitution by the people in convention, to be submitted 
to the Congress of the United Staler for its approval, 
in the same manner as when one of our territories is 
admitted as a state. On the contrary, according to 
the provisions of the Senate's amtLdment, he Con- 
jures of Texas must, in like manner, be convened; it 
must then go through the slow and troublesome pro- 
cess of ■ arving a state out a part of its territory; 
afterwards it must appoint agents or commiisioners 
to meet similar agents or commissioners, to be ap- 
pointed on our part, to discuss and argue on the terms 
and conditions on which the state shall be admitted, 
and the cession of the remaining territory to the 



10 



United States ; and after all this, and not before, the 
people of the said state must call a convjention, Irame 
a constitution, and then present it to the f'ongrcss of 
the United States for its approval, but wliich cannot 
be acted on, until the terms agreed upon by the ne- 
I gotiators ; and which constitute the conditions on 
which the state is to be admicted, shall have been 
ratified. 

That they may be more readily, and with less diffi- 
culty and expense, carried into effect, is plain, from 
the fact that the details are fewer and less complex. 
It is obvious that the numerous and complicated pro- 
visions contained in the amendment of the Senate, 
must involve much time and difficulty in their execu- 
tion ; while as to the expense, the appropriation of 
$100,000 provided for by it, is a clear additional cost, 
over and above that attendant on the esecutiou of the 
resolution of the House. 

But thfa decisive bjection to the a mendment of the 
Senate is, that it would endanger the ultimate s ic- 
cess of the measure. It proposes to fix by negotia- 
tion between the governments of the United States 
and Texas, the terms and conditions on which the 
State shall be admitted into our Union, and the ces- 
sion of the remaining territory to the United States. 
Now, by whatever name the agents conducted the 
negotiation may be known, whether they be called 
commissioners, ministers, or by any other title, the 
compact agreed on by them in behalf their respective 
governments, would be a treaty, whether to called or 
designated by some other name. The very meaning 
of a treaty, is a compact between independent States 
founded on negotiation, and if a treaty (as it clearly 
would be) it must be submitted to the Senate for its 
approval, and run the hazard of receiving the votes 
of two-thirds of the members present; which could 
hardly be expected, if we are to judge from recent 
experience. This of itself, is considered by the Pre- 
sident as a conclusive reason for proposing the reso- 
lution of the House, instead of the amendment of the 
Senate, as the basis of annexation." 

The above extract will place you in possession of 
the leading reasons for making the selection. Events 
prove that the .selection was judicious. Texas was 
annexed against every eliort'of open enemies and 
treacherous friends, both here and there, and the most 
strenuous elTorts to defeat it by England and France; 
and by it, your weak and most exposed flank was 
protected against danger from without, and the ma- 
chinations of abolitionists and their abetters at home. 
It was a great victory, both for your cau.se and the 
country, and was felt to be so at the time. That it 
was due to the selection made, I have the highest* au- 
thority. Mr. Donnelson, in his letter to me after an- 
nexation was achieved, said that any other course, 
than that pursued, would have defeated it. 

But Col. Benton now objects, that the House reso- 
lution contained a provision to extend the Missouri 
Compromise line to the western boundary of Texas, 
and asserts that this extension abolished slavery in 
the stHte ; meaning, as 1 supp ."e. that it prevented 
the introduction of slaves in the portion north of the 
line, when at the time here was no settlements of 
slaves. It was not, it seems, the resolution of those 
who voted for it, and passed it. a d among them him- 
self, who.se vote could havedefeatcd it, that abolished 
slavery, as he calls it, but I, who made the selection 
of the 1 louse rcsidution, in profiTcnce lo his amend- 
joaent. Tho slightest agency, it seems, on my part, 
in reference to any measure, makes me solely respon- 
sible for the wh.ile. U would be bettor at once for 
him to taku tho ground that I only am responsible for 
all the misdeeds of the government, since I came into 
pi'blic life, whether of commission or omission. 
Bu* what could I do 1 The President had to act, 



and to select one or the other resolutions— hi ■ or the 
House. The selection was left to him. If that of 
t e House was tainted by the Missouri Compromise, 
with ab lilionism, a.s he states, his resolution was 
mu h more deeply infected 1 have his own words 
for the a-^sertioii. He dLclared that his amendment, 
as adopted by the Senate, was the same with the 
string of resolutions he had introduced at tho prece- 
ding session, and renewed at the th n session. He 
also declared, that they were generalized and com- 
prised in one, to avoid objections to details. One of 
this string of resolutions, thus covered under general 
terms, was to divide Texas into two equal parts, by 
a line drawn north and suu*,h, of which the western 
part was to be subject to the ordinance of '87. A 
measur , coming fiom a quarter so hostile, and ac- 
companied by such a declaration, was justly suspect- 
ed as intending mi-chief. It was so considered, gen- 
erally, by the friends of annexation in the Senate, 
and was assented to reluctantly, and only because 
he had a few supp rters, who, with himself, held the 
balance, and refused to vote for the resolution of the 
House without the amendment. Among them, if my 
memory s er ■ es me, was his friend Hey ward, who was 
for covering all Texas and the whole region north of 
36" 30 with the ordinance of Timco Dcanoas et dona 
ferentes. 

1 come now to the last of his charges ; that I aban- 
doned the south, and left him and a few others alone 
by the side of the ill fated owners of the Comet, En- 
comium, Enterprise and Creole He does not state 
by wh^it act I abandoned you, but leaves it to be in- 
ferred from his remarks, that it was by voting in favor 
of the Ashburton treaty, which contained no stipula- 
tion in favor of the owuers of those vessels- It is a 
trick of his to make his charges very vaguely, so as to 
make it difficult to detect his errors and repel his slan- 
derous attacks I admit that I voted for ttie Ashbur- 
ton treaty. I did more ; I delivered a speech in its 
fivor, which, in the opinion of its friends, saved it 
froni rejection. Its fate was doubtful. The opposi- 
tion, headed by Col. Benton, was violent, and it re- 
quired two thirds to confirm the treaty. I am willing 
to take whatever share of responsibility he may think 
piroper to allot to me for voting for it. 1 look with no 
little satisfaction to my course on the occasion, from 
the belief that I rende ed then great and permanent 
service to the country ; for its adoption was the first 
link, in that series of causes by which war between 
Great Britain and us was averted. Who is there 
now so blind as to see, that if the treaty had been re- 
jecte 1, war could not have been avoided 1 The two 
countries were in truth, on the very eve of a rupture, 
the way events were moving at the time, without 
either being aware of it 

At the very next session the Oregon question for 
the first time assumed a dangerous and menacing 
aspect. A bill was introduced immediately after its 
opening, which covered the whole of that territory, 
the object of which was to commence systematically 
the work of colonization and settlement on our part. 
I took my seat in the Senate two or three weeks af- 
ter the commencement of the session, and found the 
bill on its passage, without opposition, and apparent- 
ly without division of opinion. I saw the danger to 
the peace of the two countries, and that t> e time had 
come to take a stand to save it. I determined to do 
my duty, regardless of consequences to myself. I 
arose and opposed it, and thereby exposed myself to 
the opposition of the entire west, which was strongly 
in its favor. My na < e, then, as well as when the 
Ashbuiton treaty was pending in the Senate, was be- 
fore the people for the highest honor in their gift- 
placed there, not by myself, but by my friends. Did 
I then permit the low motive of aiming at the Preat- 



11 



dcncy, to which he attributes my course on the trea- 
ty, to sway me from the path of duty 1 

My stand prevented the bill from t-ecom'ng a law. 
and that cnns'itufed the second link, in the series of 
causes by which we were enabled to avert war between 
one two ' ountries. Col Benton then wen for the 
bill, and was, I elieve for the whole o Oregon Had 
the treaty been rejected at the preceding ession, the 
stand I took and the resistance 1 mnde to the bill, 
would have been al in vain. I would have passed, 
and the countr precipita edint ■ war ; but as it was, 
time was ga ned, wh ch was all impo tant. The agi 
tation, however, was kcp up ab ut Oregon, and sim- 
lar bills were intr duced the *.wo succeeding sessions, 
which failed t y small majorities. In the meantime 
negotiations were commenced, and the claim to the 
whole of Oregon made. The cry was " all or none," 
and so strong was the current in it* f vor, that both 
parties yielded to t in the early part of the ses-ion. I 
had resign dmy seat in he Senate, but was re-elect- 
ed a short time before the session commenced, and 
tnok my seatiseveral w-eks afterward. I saw and f It 
the trength of the curren , lut resolved to breast it, 
and save tu peace of the whole country if possible. 
It was arrested, a da counter c rrent created. Col. 
Benton himself yielded to the counter-current, and 
delivered a speech after he battle was won, in which 
he belabored those who stuck to " all or none," after 
he found that they were i ' a minority. It wa^ his 
< bain of < auses. of which the Ashhurton treaty was 
the first aad indispensable link, which aver ed war, 
and by it save the two cosntries from one of the 
greatest calamities which could have befallen them, 
^.nd, I might add, the oiilized world. I hall ever 
remember, with proud sati factio . that I took a pro- 
minent lead and a highly responsible part on the side 
o pea e, throughout the whole 

1 also admit that the treaty contained no stipula- 
tion in favor of the owners of the vessels, nor any to 
prevent similiar outrages in future It was an objec- 
tion, and I admitted it to be so in my speech in favor 
of it — not a sufficient one to induce its rejection. 
But, although the treaty contained no stipulations to 
guard against like outrages thereafter, much, never- 
theless, was done in the negotiation to prevent them, 
and to place the South on much more elevated ground 
in reference to the subject, than where it stood when 
the negotiation commenced. To understand how 
much was do:-:e towards this, a brief statement of 
facts connected with the case of those reports, is ne- 
oesary. 

They were all coasting vessels, having slaves on 
board, and were all either stranded in their voyage 
from the Atlantic ports to those wn the Gulf, on the 
British possessions, Bermuda, and the Bahama Isl- 
ands, or forced to put into their ports by stress of 
weather to save themselves from shipwreck, or were 
carried in by the rising of the slaves and taking the 
ves.-el into port. Their fate was the same The 
slaves were liberated, uniier circumstances of more or 
less violence and indignity, by the local authority — 
The outrage was en<rmnu'', and the insult to the 
American flag great The first occurred as early as 
the year 1S30, and all under the administration of 
General Jackson or Mr. Van Bhren. except the Cre- 
ole Application was made to the Executive, by the 
owners, for redress. After a feeble and tame nego- 
tiation of many years, the British government agreed 
to compen-ate 'he owners in the case of the Comet 
and Encomium, but refused to make any in that of 
the Enterpri.-e, on the g.-ound that the "two first oc- 
curred before her act of aholisbing slavery bad gone 
into operation, and the other after it had. The ad- 
ministration (Mr. Van Baren's) accepted the com- 
pensation, and acquiesced in the refusal in the case of 



the Enterprise, without remonstrance or protest, and 
thus waived our right, and admitted the absurd and 
daneerou? principle on which the refusal was placed. 

What the ad.niinistration shatoefullv omitted to do, 
1 resolved to do through the Senate, if possible : and 
with that view, and in order to perpetu>ite our claim 
of right, I moved in the Senate, in 1840, the three 
following resolutions, and succeeded in passing them 
bv a unanimous vote, with some slight amen(3m3nt — 
Col. Benton vot'ng for them, but. not standing by 
me. as he says, for he never uttered a word in their 
support : 

'• R,esolved, That a .ship or vessel on the high seas, 
in time of peace, engazed in a lawful voyage, is, ac- 
cording to the laws of nations, under the exclusive 
jurisdiction of the state to which her flag belongs, as 
much so as if constituting a part of its own domain. 

" Resolved, That if such ship or vessel should be 
forced by stress of weather, or other unavoidable 
cause, into the port of a friendly power, she would, 
under the same laws, lose none of the rights apper- 
taining to her on the high seas ; but. on the contrary, 
she and her cargo .and persons on board, with their 
property, and all tha rights belonging to their per- 
sonal relations, as established by the laws of the state 
to which they belong, would be placed under the pro- 
tection which the laws of nations extend to the unfor- 
tunate under such circumstances. 

" Resolved, That the brig Enterprise, which was 
forced unavoidably by stress of weather into Port Ha- 
milton, Bermuda Island, while on a lawful voyage on 
the high seas, from one part of the Union to an- 
other, conies within the principle embraced in the 
foregoing resolutions ; and that the seizure and de- 
tention of the negroes on board by the local authority 
of the island, was an act in violation of the laws of 
nations, and highly unjust to our own citizens, to 
whom they belong." 

Such was the condition in which the administration 
ofiNlr. Van l^urenlcft these outrageous cases. _ They 
never were brought to the notice of the public, and 
the principle first contended for was surrendered, and 
that maintained by Greut Britain in the case of the 
Enterprise acquiesced in ; and of course, all claims of 
compensation on the part of the owners rendered 
hopeIe?s. The following administration had nothing 
to stand on, but my resolutions and the vote of the 
Senate in their favor. If, then, " the ill-fated own- 
ers" were sacrificed, it was not by me. Their case 
was rendeied hopeh^ss by the preceding administra- 
tion, with which Mr. Benton was intimately associ- 
ated, and in which he acquiesced: for he never raised 
his voice in their favor in the long period often years, 
during all which time his voice mght have been po- 
tential. I turn now to explain what was done in re- 
ference to this subject by the negotiation, which end- 
ed in the A?hburton treaty, and how much the South, 
which he accuses me as having abandoned, has gained 
by it. For that purpose I insert an extract from my 
speech on the treaty : 

" Such was the state of the facts, when the negotia- 
tions commenced in reference to these cases ; and it 
remains now to be shown in what state it has left 
them. In the first place, the broad principles of the 
law of nations, on which I placed our right in my res- 
olutions, have been clearly stated, and conclusively 
vindicated, in the very able letter of the Secretary of 
State, which has strengthened our cause not a little, 
as well from its intrinsic merit, as the quarter from 
which it comes In the next place, we have an ex- 
plicit recognition of the principles for which we con- 
tend, in the answer of Lord Ashhurton, who express- 
ly savs, that " On the great principles affecting this 
case" (the Creole) they do not differ ;" and that is 
followed by " an engagement that instructions shall 



12 



be given to the governors of her MajestyJs colonies, 
on the southern borders of the United States, to e.t- 
ecute their own lavv^with cartful attention to the 
wishes of their government to maintain good neigh- 
borhood, and that there .'hall be no officious interfer- 
ence with Ameiiean vesse's driven by acoident or vi- 
olence into their ports. The laws and duty of hospi- 
tality shall be executed." Thi.> pledge v.as accepted 
by our exeeative, accompanied by the express decla- 
ration of the President, through the Secretary of Iho 
State, that he places his reliance on those principles 
of public law which had been stated in the note of the 
Secretary of State." 

Here we have a positive acknowledgment of the 
principle which the administration ■ f Mr. Van Buren 
had abandoned, and a. pledge that necessary measures 
would be taken to prevent similar oc:!urrenoes in fu- 
ture, and the laws a'ld duMes of hospitality he execu- 
ted Now, when I add, that all this, thus far, has 
been faithfully executed, 1 may as-ert wiih truth, 
that you gain much, far more than I had h'iped, con- 
sidering the state in which the subject had heen left 
by the preced ng administration. So much for the 
charge that I had abanuoned you on the occasion, 
and tbe assertion of Col. Benton that he had stood by 
" the ill-fated owners." * 

I have now repelled all the f^harges intended to 
shake your confidence in my fidelity to .fou, in refer- 
ence to the most vital of all subjects to the south I 
have shown that they all rest either on statements 
that are utterly fal-'e, or conclusions that rre entirely 
erroneous or inconclusive 1 have also shown, that 
Col. Benton has involved himself at every step, in 
false statements, contradiction, inconsistency and ab- 
surdities. 1 will not s-ay, that he made his charges 
knowing them to be falne ; for (hat would brand him 
as a base caluminator and slanderer; hut I will say 
he ought 10 have known thej were It may he, how- 
ever, that he was too mu h blinded by passions and 
prejudices, or lacked the discrimiaatioa to perceive 
they were. 

1 have passed over all that*as directed against me 
personally, and not intended to impench my fide'i'y 
to you and your cause ; because it did not fall with- 
in the reasons which induced me to notice him at all. 
I have also passed over the torrent of abuse he has 
poured out ai;ainstme ; not only for the sanif reason, 
but because T deem it beneath my notice (ledoulit- 
lees thinks dilTerently, and regardsitas thofinest por- 
tion of his speech ; for he had used expressions which 
retty clearly indicate that he anticipates it will raise 
him to the level of the great Athenian orator, fir 
indignant denunciation. He mistskes bis fate IIo 
will be fortunate should he escape sinking to the levH 
of Thersiteg. He seems not to apprehend that the 
difference is wide between the indignant eloquence of 
patriotism and truth, and scurrilous defamation. I 
also pasflover his attack on the southern address; be- 
cau.so it has been too iprnirstUy r>ad, and is too well 
understood by you, for him to do any mischief hy 
assailing it. The wonder is, that he should venture 
to make an attnck in open daylight. T e remote 
■ twilight regii n of the past, lying l)etween truth and 
fiction, best suits bis taste and genius 

Passing all these by, 1 atu brought to where he 
throws olT hi.i nisguiso, and enters the camp of the 
enemy, and openly proclaims liimsell an abolitionist, 
endorties all their doc:riues, and stcpi forth as Ihoir 
champion. In that character, he assumes a dictato- 
rial air, und pronounces that it is absurd to deny the 
power of Congress to legislate as it pleases, on the 
Buliject of slavery in the territories ; that it has exor- 
cised the power from the foundation without being 
questioned, until 1 introiiucj i my resolutions ; that 
slaverj' is local in its character ; that it must be 



created by law, and cannot be carried an inch beyond 
the limit-i of the sta'e that enacted it : that slaves 
cannot be carried into \e v Mexif'O or Calif >rnia, 
because the 'VJexiean laws abolished slavery there, 
and are still in force ; and concludes that it is a mere' 
abstract question I'f no importance, because the peo- 
ple there, and especially the foreigners, are opposed 
to it. and will not permit you to emigiate into the 
territory wiih your slaves. 

1 do not propose to enter into a formal competition 
of assertions so ostentatiously pronounced. It is t ot 
necessary. They were the same that w ere put forth, 
and relied on by those opposed to you in the di-cus- 
sion on the Oregon territorial bill, during the session 
preceding the las' ; and which were then fully met 
and refuted by me and others, who took yo r side of 
the qiKistion. Wh t I now propose i^ a very sum- 
mary and brief notice of these several assertions 

I begin with that which asserts that Congress has 
the ) ower to do as it plea.'^es upon the suhjt-ct of sla- 
very in the territories I deny the assertion, and 
maintain that Congress has no such power over slave- 
ry there or elsewhere, or over an:? other subject I 
deny that Congress has any absolute powers wha'ev- 
er ; or that it ha? any of any description, except such 
as are specifically del-^gated, or that are necessary and 
proper to carry them into execution. 1 mair.tain, that 
all its powers are d legated and trust pr.W'^rs, and not 
positive and absolute, and that all of the latter de- 
scription belong exclusively to the peo^de of the >eve- 
ral states in their sovereign character 1 als>> hold,, 
that ("ongress is hut thei representative and rrus'ee, 
and that in carrying into execution its p iwers, it can- 
n'~t rightfully exercise any inconsistent with the na- 
ture and object of the trust, or with the character of 
the party wbo created the trust, and f^r whose bem-fit 
it was created 1 finally hold, that) ins'ead 'f having 
the absolute power over the territories, of duiiig as it 
pleases, that (Congress is restrained i^y all th^-se limi- 
tations, and that its p-iwer to exclude you troin emi- 
grating with your slaves into tbtin, cannot be main- 
tained without denying that ouis is a government of 
which states and not itidividuals are thj constituents, 
and that ( M)ngress holds its powers as delegated and 
trust powers iN'i>rcan it be maintained, without as- 
suming that ours is a. ronsf lidated g'lveiiimeni, and 
holds its powers alisolutely in its own sovereign rigtit 
of doing as it pleases. 

I also deny the truth of this next assertion, that it 
has exorci ed the io«er over the territories as it 
pleased, without b.'ing questioned, unfi I introduced 
my resolutions I m;i. ntain, on the contrary, that 
such power never was exercised by Congress, until ho 
and bis associates I assed the Oregon territorial bill. 
That was the first bill containing tbe VVilmot pioviso, 
that ever passed, us has bei-n s'ated - passed solely 
to asse tthe absolute right of doing ;is it pleases. All 
others. Lncliidii g the ordinance of 17ai7, were passed 
<as compromises which waived the que>tr»n of power, 
as has been frequently shown Nor is hi- assertion 
more correct, that the power never wa,s que.siioned, 
until the intro action of my resolutions It waa 
questioned from the start, beginning with tbe ordi- 
nance of n^t?. Mr Madison pronounced that it waa 
adopted without a shadow of rig' t. Since tt.en it 
has been acquiesced in not as a rit:ht but as a com- 
promise, until the North refu.sed all cotupromise, and 
forced he South to stand on its rights, where it 
should have stood from the first. 

The next assertion, that slavery is local in its 
character, fliit it must be enac'el by law, and can- 
not be carried an inch b' yon the limts of the State 
that euacled it, is equally uniuainiaiiiable. ]l is 
clear that in making it, he intended to aQirm, that in 



18 



these fesneots, property in slaves stands on very differ- 
ent ground from e%"ery other description of property. 

I deny the fact, aud maintain that there is no dis- 
tinction between it and the other property, in that re- 
spect. It no more requires to be enacied by a law, or 
— toexpress it more speci' cally — to have a positive 
enactment for its origin, than property in lan»l or any 
thing el.*e. The relation of master and slave was one 
of the first and most universal forms in which property 
existed. It is so ancient, that there is no record of 
origin. It is probably more ancient than seperate 
and distinct prop rty in lands, and quite as easily de- 
fended on abstract principles. So far from being 
created by positive enactment, 1 know of no instance 
in which it ever was, or to express it more accurately, 
in which it had its o igi i in acts of legislatures. It is 
always older than the laws which undeta ke to regu- 
late it, and such is the case with slavery, as it exists 
with us. They were for the most part slaves in 
Africa— they were bought as slaves, brought here as 
slaves, sold here as slaves, and held as slaves, long 
before any enactment made them slave . I even 
doubt wuether th re is a single State in the South, 
that even enacted them to be slaves. There are hun- 
dreds of acts that recognise and regulate them as such, 
but none, I apprehend, that undertake to create the)m 
slaves. Master and slaves are constantly regarded as 
pre-existing relati ns 

Nor is it any more local in its character than other 
property. The laws of all countries, in reference to 
everylhing> including property of every kind, are lo- 
cal, and cannot go an inch beyond the limits to which 
the authority of the country extends In case of pro- 
perty of every description, if it passes beyond the 
authority of the country where it is, into another, 
where the same description of things are regarded as 
property, it ci>ntinues to be so there, but becomes 
subject to the laws and regulations of the place in 
relerence to such property. But, if it be prohibited 
as property, in the country into which it passes, it 
ctasts to be so, uoless it has been forced in, under 
circumstances which placed it under the protection of 
international laws. Thus, one and the same princi- 
ple applies in this respect to all property ; in things 
animate or inanimate, and rational or irrational. — 
There can be no exception ; as property everywhere 
aud of every kind is subject to the control of the au- 
thority of the country. Thus far, I hold that there 
can be no reasonable doubt. 

Nor can there be any that the same principle ap- 
plies between the several states, in our system of gov- 
ernment. Slaves, oraby other property, carried into 
a state where it is also property, continues still to be 
so ; but if into one where it is prohibited, it ceases to 
be properly. This s admitted, too, by all. Itisalso 
admutedby all, that the general government cannot 
overrule the laws of a sla e, as to what shall or shall 
not be property, within the limits cf its authority. 
The only question, then, is, what is the power of the 
general government where its authority extends be- 
yond the limits of the authority of the states, regard- 
ed iu their separate and ii- dividual character 1 or, to 
make it moi e specific, can it determine what shall or 
shall not be property in the territories, or wherever 
it.- authority extends, beyonri that of the states separ- 
ately 1 or, to makeitgtill|more so, can it establish sla 
verj( iu the territories! can it enact a law providing 
that any negro or mulatto found in the territories of 
the United States shall be slaves, and be liable to be 
seized and treated as such by whoever may choose to 
dofo? Accoiding to Col Benton's doctrine that 
Congress may legislate as its pleases upon the subject 
of slavery in the territories, it would have the power ; 
)>ut 1 doub whether there is another individual who 
would agree with him. But, if it has not the power 



to establish slavery in the territories, how can it havtf 
the power to abolish it 1 The one is the counterpart 
of the other ; and where is the provision of the consti- 
tution to be found which authorizes the one and for- 
bids the other'! 

The same question may be propounded as to public 
and private vessels belonging to the United States and 
their citizens on the high seas ; for the principle 
which applies to the territories equally applies to them, 
and to all places to which the authority of the general 
government extends, beyond the states regarded se- 
parately. 

It is, indeed, a great misconception of the charac- 
ter and object of the general government, to suppose 
that it has the power either to establish or abolish 
slavery, or any other i roperty, wh re its authority 
extends beyond the limits of the states regarded in- 
dividually. Its authority is but the united and joint 
authority of the several states, conferred upon it by 
a constitution, adopted on mutual agreement, but by 
the separate act of eac i state, in like manner in every 
respect, as each adopted its own separate constitution, 
■with the sirgle exception, that one was adopted with- 
out, and the other on mutual agreement of all the 
states. 

It is then, in fact, the constitution of each state, 
as much so as its own separate constitution, and is 
only the constitution of all the states, because it is 
that of each. As the constitution made the general 
government, that, too, is, in like manner, as much 
the government of each state as its own separate 
■ government, and only the government of all. because 
it is the government of each. So likewise are its 
laws, and for the same reason. Its authority, then, 
is but the united and common authority of the sever- 
al states, delegated by eac i to i e exercised for the 
mutual benefit of each and all, and for the greater 
security of the rights and interests of each and all. 
It was for that purpose the states united in a federal 
Union, and adopted a common constitution and gov- 
ernment. Wi h the ssme view, they conferred upon 
the government whatever power it has of regulating 
and protecting what appertained to their exterior re- 
lations among themselves and with the rest of the 
•world. Each, in brief, agreed with the others, to 
unite their joint authority and power to protect the 
safety and rights, and promote the interest of each, 
by their united power. 

Such is clearly the character and object of the gene- 
ral government, and of the authority and power con- 
ferred on it in its power and authority, having for its 
object the more perfect protection and promotion of 
the safety and rights of each and all it is bound to 
protect, by their united power, the safety, the rights, 
the property and the interests of the citizens of all, 
wherever its authority extends. That was the object 
for conferring whatever power and authority it has, 
and if it fails to fulfil that it fails to perform the duty 
for which it was created. It ib enough for it to know 
that it is the right, interest, or property of a citizen of 
one of the States, to make it its ditty to protect it, 
whenever it comes within the sphere of its authority, 
whether in the territories, or on the high se-s, or any- 
where else. Its power and authority were conferred 
on it not to establish or to abolish property, or rights 
of any description, but to protect them. 

To establish or abolish belongs to the states, in their 
separate sovereign capacity— the capacity in which 
they created both general and their separate staie 
governments Jt would be, then, a total and gross 
pervasion of its power and authority to uso them to 
establish or abolish slavery, or any other property of 
the citizens of the United States, in the territories.— 
All the power it has, in that respect, is to recognise 
ai property there whatever is recognised as such by 



14 



the authority of any one of the states, its own being 
but the united authority of each and all of the statos, 
and to adopt such laws for its regulation and protec- 
tion a« the state of the case may require ; nor is 
there the slighfest dangor that recognition of the pro- 
party of citizens of each and all the states within the 
territies would turn thetn into a Bablo, as Col Ben- 
ton coiitetlds. All m: ' co-exist without conflict or 
confusion, by observing the plain and simple rule of 
duty and justice. 

There is another error akin to this — that the Mex- 
ican law abolishing slaTery, is still in force in New 
Mexico and California, when not a particle of its au- 
thority or sovereignty remains in either. Their con- 
quest by us, and the treaty that followed, extinguish- 
ed the whole, and with it annulled all her laws appli- 
cable to them, except those relating to such rights of 
property and relations between individuals, as may 
be necessary to i.-. event anarchy ; and even these are 
continued only by sufiferanoe and on the implied au- 
thority of the conquering country, and not the autho- 
rity of the conquered, and only from the nece.^^sity 
cf the case. Her law abolishing slavery, are not em- 
bracC'l in the exception ; and if it were, it would be 
taken out of if, as the Hssent of Congress could not 
be implied to continue a law which it had no right to 
establish. 

But still higher ground may be taken. The mo- 
ment the territory became ours, the constitution 
passes over and civers the whole with its provisions, 
which, tnim their nature, are applicable to territo- 
ries, carrying with it. the joint sovereignty and au- 
thority of each and all the states of the Union, and 
sweeping away every Mexican law incompatible with 
the rights, property, and rel tions beloriging to the 
citizens of the United States, without regard to what 
state they belong, or whether it be situated in the 
nortberH or southern section of the Union The citi- 
zens of all have equal rights of protection in their pro- 
perty, relations, and person, iu the common territo- 
ries of each and all the slates The same power that 
swept awi.y all the laws of Mexico, which made the 
Catholic religion the exclusive religion of the country, 
and which let iu the religion of all denominations; 
which swept away all the laws prohibiting the intro- 
duction of |.ro))erty of almost every description — some 
absolutely, and othiTs under the condition of paying 
duties, and letting them in duty free until otherwise 
provided for, swept that which abolished slavery, and 
let in property in slaves. No di.--tinction can be made 
between it and any other description of jiroperty or 
thing, consistently with the constitution, and the equal 
rights of the several states of the Union, and their 
citizens. 

But we are told Sy Col. Benton that the question 
has become a mere abstraction, of no iuiportancej; 
that few have gone into either territory exec t citi- 
zens of the north and foreigners, and that they are 
all opposed to us. What insult ! What • taunt uj 
by telling us we cannot go into them, becau>e for- 
eigners and others, who have been let iu freely, and 
■we kept out, by the threat of contiscating our jiroperty 
by bim.'^elf and his associates, have become sulliciontly 
numerous to keep us out, without the intervention of 
Congress to aid them 1 iie knew that " property is 
timid," and could be ke, t out by threats ; and that 
to k«ep us out for a shurt time was one of the wa 8 
to exclude us ultimately. What a comment on the 
equity and justice of the government, that we, who 
have 80 freely t-pent our blood and treasure to cun- 
quer the country, should be excluded from all its ben- 
efits, while it is left open for the u«e and enjoyment 
of all that rabble of lureigners which he enumerates, 
with such zest, as the eflicicnt means of exclusion ! 
In there another iu::taaco of 8uch an outrage to bo 



found in the history of any other government that ever 
existed'? 

His avowal of the doctrines of the abolitionists will 
have an effect he little suspected, when he made it. 
It furnishes ample evidence to show that he used de- 
ception in a-fsigning his reas ins (or declining to obey 
the insttyjction of bis Legislature it will be remem- 
bered, he offered as his reas ms that their resolutions 
instructing him were borrowed from mine, and that 
mine were introduced for disunion purposes, and that 
there was no difference between them, except mat 
mine aimed directly at disunion, and theirs ultimately 
at the same thing. He added, in effect, that his de- 
votion to the Union would not permit him to vote for 
resolutions so deeply tainted with disunion. That 
was at the commencement of his speech. We now 
have in its conclusion conclusive evidence from him- 
self, that all this was a mere fetch — a stratagem to 
conceal his real motive, for declining to obey them. 
His real motive, as it now appears, was that he could 
not vote for them under any circumstances ; for how 
could an abilitionist, as he avowed himself to be, 
possibly obey resolutions, w:.ich are utterly at variance 
with their dociriues ? 

To obey would have involved him in palpable con- 
tradiction, so much so, t at it could not fail to pros- 
trate and to overwhelem him with shame invulnera- 
ble This he saw, and that he had no alternative 
left but to resign or disobey. He determined in favor 
of the latter; but this of itself did not relieve him of 
his dilemma. He knew well that it would defeat his 
object to come out boldly, and say that he had ab- 
jured his former creed and adopted that of the aboli- 
tionists And hence, he was force I to adopt some 
other expedient ; and for that purpose adopted the 
mierable pretext of slanderously charging me and 
my resolutions, and his own Legislature and their re- 
solutions, with disunion, and of ass'guing that as his 
reason for not obeying them, when he knew that his 
position made it impossible for him to obey them. 
But these are tiot the only resolutionsadopted by the 
Legisla ure of his sta e to instruct him. The previ- 
ous Legislature adopted two others, of which he says 
that they truL express the sense of the state, and 
that he obeyed them, not only in their letter, but 
spirit. They are in the following words : 

" Resolve I, Th-ti he peace, permanency and welfure 
of our National Uuinn depend upoa a strict adherence 
to the letter and sprrit of the Sth section of the act of 
Congress of the United States, • ntitled 'an act to au- 
thorise the people of the Missouri territory to form a 
constituti n and state go>'ernment for the admission 
of such state into the Union on an equal footing with 
the origsiial states, and to prohibit slavery in certain 
territories. ' — Approved March Cth, 1820." 

'• Kesolved, T at our senators in the Congress of 
the Unit'.-d States are hereby instructed, and our re- 
prcSMit itives requested, to vote in aeeordance with the 
provisions and the spirit of the said 8th section of the 
said act, in all the questions which may couie before 
them in relation to the organization of new territories 
or states out of the territor now belonging to the 
Llnited States, or which htfreafier may be acquired, 
either by [lurchase, by treaty, or by conq est " 

It is proper to observe, that the eighth section to 
which they rcftr onitaius the Mi-ssouri compromise, 
which e.'tablished 'M 30 as the dividing line between 
the slaveholding and non-slaveholding states, drawn 
between the we^tern boundary of the state of Mis- 
souri and the western boundary of Loui.-iana These 
resolutions he says ho obeyed, in letter and spirit, 
when in fact he flagrantly violated them, by tiis vote 
for the t>regoii territorial bill, prohibiting slavery in 
that territory, without any compromise annexed; and 
that, too, to assert the principle of the unhmited 



15 



power of Congress over the territories, and in open 
defiance of all compromise. He calls that bill his pro- 
viso, and well he may, for he passed it when it was in 
his power to defeat it. A very few remarks will suf- 
fice to show that I have not expressed myself stronger 
than truth warrants. • 

The first resolution asserts " that the peace, harmo- 
ny, and vx elfare of our national Union depends upon 
a strict adherence to the letter and spirit of the Mis- 
souri compromise, ^and the lastinstructs their senators 
and representatives to vote in accordance with its 
provisions and spirit, in all questions which may come 
up before them in relation to the organization of new 
territories or states, out of territories now belonging 
to the United States, or which hereafter may be ac- 
quired." JNo instruction could be more full or expli- 
cit, or assign stronger motives for obeying them, espe- 
cially to one professing so great a devotion to the 
Union. There is no mistnking the meaning. He is 
instructed to vote for all bills in reference to the terri- 
tories which may conform to the letter and spirit of 
the Missouri compromise, and against all that do 
not ; that is, to vote for all that extend the line 
westward from its terminus on the western boun- 
dary of Texas — for that is its letter — and to se- 
cure to the south that por ion of the territory lying 
on the southern side of the line, as effectually as that 
compromise did in fact all the territory which lay on 
its southern side, and to vote against all bills that did 
uot; for that is meant by its spirit. There was good 
reason to put in "spirit," for it was understood then 
that the doctrine began to be broached, that t e laws 
of Mexico abolishing slavery wrf)uld continue in force, 
unless they were repealed, if not prevented by some 
efif ctual guard. No additional remarks can make 
his disobedience more clear, and he now stands con- 
demned fo disobeying he instructions of his Legisla- 
ture, which he himself praises, and which he does not 
even pretend to charge with disunion. 

1 notice in he progress of this communication, that 
Col Benton evinced unusual solicitude to confound 
the Missouri compromise, and all other compromises 
of the kind, with the Wilmot proviso. 1 attribute it, 
in part, to a desire to screen himself from the odium 
of having voted f)r the Wilmot proviso by confound- 
ing It with other measures, that were far less offen- 
sive ; but 1 said that ther was another more power- 
ful reason, wh:ch would be explained in the sequel. 
That reason was to shelter himself, if possible, against 
the charge of violating instruction.*, whic he ac- 
knowledged to be above exception If he could possi- 
bly establish that the Missouri compromise and the 
Wilmot proviso were identical, as he would have Ws 
constituents believe, to obey the one would be to 
obey the otAr. But I have fho>vn that was impossi- 
ble, and tiius he is left, without the possibility of 
escaping the charge of disobeying them. 

With a few additional remarks, I shall close this 
long communication. 

Col. Benton assigns devotion to the Union as his 
motive for taking the course he has ; and by implica- 



tion, charges your's as being the side of disunion, and 
his and the abolitionists' that of the union. In this, 
he but follows the example of all who have befrayed 
you, or intend to betray you. It is so common, that 
it has become notorious, that a strong profession of 
attachment to the Union and condemnation of what 
is called the violence and ultraism of the south, ac- 
companied by a volley of abuse of me, and the ab- 
sence of all censure or condemnation of your assail- 
ants, are certain signs that he who utters them is rea- 
dy to seize the first opportunity to desert your cause. 

To these designs may be added another— an appeal 
to that portion of the farewell address of the father of 
his country, quoted by Col. Benton, under circum- 
stances which make its application apply to you, and 
cot to those who assail you. 1 respond to every 
word it contains, with a hearty amen. It i,«, indeed, 
deeply to be deplored, that parties should be desig- 
nated by geographical position, and I regard whatev- 
er party or individual who may have caused it, as de- 
serving of public reprobation. But to avoid geogra- 
phical designation of parties, it is indispensable that 
each section of the Union should respect the rights of 
the others, and carefully abstain from violating them. 
Unless that is done, it will be impossible to avoid it — 
aggression will, and ought to, lead to resistance on 
the part of those whose rights are trampled upon and 
safety endangered. Sectional assault on one side, 
and sectional resistance on the other, cannot fail to 
lead to sectional designation of parties. The blame 
and responsibility rightfully falls on the section that 
assails, and uot that wLlch repels assaults. Which 
that is in the present case, admits of no doubt. 

The south has been on the defensive throughout, 
and borne indignities and encroachments on its rights 
and safety with a patience unexamp ed : and yet she 
is basely charged with disunion, and the north laud- 
ed as its advocate We must learn to disrega d such 
unfounded and unjust cha' ges, and manfully do our 
duty to save both the Union and ourselves, if it can 
be done consistently with our equality and our safety; 
and if not, to .^ave ourselves, at all events, in doing 
so, we should but follow the example of our Wash- 
ington in the great struggle which sev-red the union 
between the colonies and the mother country He 
was ardently attached to that union, struggled hard 
to preserve it by resisting the encroachments of Par- 
liament on the old and established rights and privi- 
leges of the CO onies ; but the folly and infatuation of 
Parliament, and the vile machinations of tories among 
ourselves, rendered all his efforts, and those of the 
patriots of his day, unava ling. The world knows 
the consequence My sincere prayer is, that those 
who are encroaching on our rights — rig t> essential 
to our safety, and more solemnly guatantied than 
those of the colonies — ma , as well for their sakes as 
ours, profit by the example. 



JOHN C. CALHOUN. 



Fort Hill, July 5th, 1849. 



^ 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



011 932 925 5 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 932 925 5 



